Denmark’s Speaker of Parliament has proposed relocating the troubled Udrejsecenter Kærshovedgård to Livø, a state owned island in Limfjorden. The suggestion has sparked fierce debate between politicians, with local mayors divided over whether to move the facility housing deported foreigners away from central Jutland.
The departure center at Kærshovedgård near Bording has generated problems for a decade. Cases involving drug trafficking, vehicular manslaughter, violence and threats have repeatedly put the facility in the spotlight. Now Søren Gade, Speaker of Parliament and candidate for Venstre in the upcoming election, wants to move the center from its current Midtjylland location to the island of Livø.
Gade argues that residents have endured the center and its many problems as neighbors for too long. Everyone acknowledges the situation is terrible, but no one takes action, he says. The facility has been poorly located from the start, according to Gade, who criticizes politicians for never putting state owned land into play when major problems arise.
Island Relocation Revives Old Debate
The proposal echoes a 2018 plan to establish a departure center on Lindholm island between Møn and Sjælland. That plan was eventually scrapped because the economics did not work out. But Gade remains convinced an island is the right solution for housing individuals who have been ordered to leave Denmark.
Background of Kærshovedgård Center
Udrejsecenter Kærshovedgård was established in a former prison facility and relocated from Sandholm in 2016. The move aimed to isolate residents from urban areas, but it shifted the burden to Bording and surrounding communities. The center originally housed rejected asylum seekers but now primarily holds individuals ordered deported, including criminals whose home countries refuse to take them back.
The facility operates under Kriminalforsorgen by agreement with Udlændingestyrelsen. Residents have breached residency rules approximately 900 times since the center opened. Weekly fence reinforcements have become routine as authorities struggle to maintain security and prevent unauthorized departures.
Security Concerns Mount
Police reports indicate that vehicle access for residents worsens crime in the local area. The center houses terror convicted individuals and gang criminals, prompting intelligence monitoring and a special security assessment. In recent Folketing debates, the Integration Minister confirmed ongoing work to tighten rules based on police assessments of increased crime risks to neighboring communities.
One case linked a center resident to a murder investigation, highlighting the serious nature of criminal activity associated with some individuals housed at the facility. These security issues amplify local demands for either stricter controls or complete relocation of the center.
Local Politicians Clash Over Proposal
Political reactions to the island relocation proposal reveal deep divisions even within the same party. Per Bach Laursen, Venstre mayor of Vesthimmerlands Kommune where Livø is located, strongly opposes his party colleague’s suggestion.
Vesthimmerland Mayor Rejects Island Plan
Laursen describes the proposal as election campaigning gone wild. He has previously fought to ensure the island remains untouched and sees no reason to change that position now. Livø currently functions as a nature reserve and has historical significance that should be preserved, according to the mayor.
The island operated as an institution for men deemed morally mentally deficient from 1911 to 1961. Foundations have allocated funds to establish an information center about this history. Laursen believes using an island for a departure center belongs to the past, not the present. He compares the idea to Alcatraz prison near San Francisco and says he dislikes the image such a facility would create.
Ikast Brande Mayor Welcomes Change
In sharp contrast, Ib Lauritsen, Venstre mayor of Ikast Brande Kommune where Kærshovedgård is located, calls the relocation proposal a liberation. He argues that politicians lack courage to admit the current arrangement does not work. The center sits between major Jutland cities with a train station nearby, allowing residents to travel freely, he notes.
Lauritsen insists that if Livø is not suitable, then Christiansborg politicians must find another solution. The center has always been a Folketing project, so the government must take responsibility for resolving the situation, according to the mayor. His support reflects widespread frustration in communities near the current facility.
Residents and Operators Object
People directly affected by the proposal express strong opposition to transforming Livø into a departure center location. Jesper Lynge, who lives on the island and manages its vacation center, dismisses the idea entirely.
Forpagter Sees Election Tactics
Lynge describes the proposal as extremely misguided and accuses Gade of vote fishing in the Ringkøbing constituency. The real desire is for a closed institution or prison, but politicians lack the courage to say so openly, according to Lynge. He sees the proposal as cynical political maneuvering rather than serious policy discussion.
The forpagter also points out that Livø is designated as a Natura 2000 habitat under European environmental protection rules. A departure center would destroy the island for all current users, including school classes, wedding couples and tourists who visit for nature experiences.
Environmental and Tourism Concerns
The island’s status as a nature reserve creates legal complications for any facility construction. Protected habitats under EU regulations would likely require extensive environmental impact assessments before any development could proceed. This adds practical obstacles to the already significant political opposition.
Tourism and educational activities generate income for the local community and provide nature experiences for thousands of visitors annually. Transforming the island into a secure facility for deportation cases would eliminate these benefits and fundamentally change the island’s character and purpose.
Policy Context and Immigration Challenges
The debate over Kærshovedgård reflects broader challenges in Danish immigration policy, particularly regarding individuals ordered to leave but unable to be deported. Many residents come from countries that refuse to accept returnees, creating an indefinite limbo situation.
National Immigration Framework
Denmark’s approach to rejected asylum seekers and criminal foreigners has evolved toward stricter isolation from general population centers. The 2016 relocation from Sandholm to Kærshovedgård followed this logic but created new problems in a different location. Current policy under Udlændinge og Integrationsministeriet emphasizes enforcement of departure orders while managing individuals whose home countries will not cooperate.
Recent Folketing debates have addressed proposals to ban vehicle ownership and driving privileges for center residents. The Integration Minister confirmed ministry work on tightening rules following police assessments, but no final measures have been announced. These discussions show ongoing efforts to address local concerns without resolving the fundamental question of where such facilities should be located.
Integration and Deportation Process
Understanding how to immigrate to Denmark legally highlights the contrast with individuals at departure centers who have exhausted legal options. The facility houses people whose asylum claims were rejected or who committed crimes serious enough to result in deportation orders. Some have terror convictions or gang affiliations requiring special security measures.
The challenges at Kærshovedgård illustrate tensions between community safety, humanitarian obligations and practical limitations in immigration enforcement. Politicians across parties acknowledge these difficulties but disagree on solutions, with blame often focused on past decisions rather than future alternatives.
Historical Precedents Shape Current Debate
The controversy surrounding island facilities has deep roots in Danish policy discussions. Previous governments have explored remote locations as solutions for housing difficult deportation cases.
Lindholm Plan Comparison
The 2018 Lindholm proposal generated similar debates about isolation versus integration concerns. That plan would have placed rejected asylum seekers on an island accessible only by ferry, creating physical separation from mainland communities. Public reaction was mixed, with some praising the security benefits while others criticized the approach as inhumane.
Economic factors ultimately killed the Lindholm plan rather than political or ethical objections. Cost estimates for building and operating an island facility exceeded budget allocations, making the project financially unfeasible. This history suggests that even if Livø gains political support, practical implementation could face similar obstacles.
Conservative Party Role in Earlier Decisions
Folketing debates reveal partisan disagreements over responsibility for the current situation. Left leaning speakers fault Conservatives and former Integration Minister Inger Støjberg for the 2016 decision to establish Kærshovedgård. Critics note that Conservatives opposed an earlier proposal to move criminal residents to a different remote location.
Conservative representatives counter that the resident profile has shifted significantly since 2016, now including far more serious criminals than originally anticipated. They point to their recent support for relocation proposals as evidence of changed positions. These historical disputes complicate efforts to build consensus on future solutions.
Uncertain Path Forward
No clear resolution has emerged from the debate over Kærshovedgård’s future. The facility continues operating despite widespread acknowledgment of serious problems affecting both residents and neighboring communities.
Pending Ministry Decisions
The Integration Ministry’s ongoing review of rules and restrictions represents the most concrete near term development. Police input on crime risks and security concerns will shape whatever new measures emerge. However, rule changes address symptoms rather than the fundamental question of location that drives the current controversy.
Whether vehicle bans or other restrictions can adequately address local concerns remains uncertain. Past experience suggests that incremental policy adjustments rarely satisfy communities bearing the burden of controversial facilities.
Electoral Politics Influence
Gade’s proposal comes during an election campaign, raising questions about motivations and realistic prospects for implementation. Politicians seeking votes in affected constituencies face pressure to propose dramatic solutions even if practical barriers prevent quick action. The Livø suggestion may serve more to highlight problems than to chart a viable path forward.
Future governments will inherit the challenge of managing departure centers regardless of election outcomes. Finding locations acceptable to host communities while meeting security and humanitarian requirements remains one of Denmark’s most difficult immigration policy puzzles.
Sources and References
The Danish Dream: How to Immigrate to Denmark
The Danish Dream: Everything You Need to Know About Family Reunification in Denmark
The Danish Dream: Islands in Denmark Your Complete Guide to Denmarks Islands
The Danish Dream: Immigration and Labour Law in Denmark for Foreigners
DR: Markant forslag deler vandene Udrejsecenter Kærshovedgård skal flyttes til Livø mener
Folketinget: Official Parliamentary Website
